Alanna Hartzok
The process leading up to the nomination of the
Republican candidate, Bill Shuster, elder son of Bud
Shuster and a car dealer, was widely understood to have
resulted from ethically questionable and manipulative
dealings by Shuster supporters. Hartzok had been
considering running for this office in 2002 but when
Representative Bud "King of Pork" Shuster unexpectedly
resigned in January (the same day he was sworn in after
being re-elected to serve again after 28 years in office),
she quickly decided to jump into the race. After a rapid
nomination process by Green Party locals in the district
and during a statewide Party meeting, on January 29th The
Green Party became the first Party to announce a candidate
for the race.
During the five weeks preceding the election day on
May 15 Hartzok did one to three media interviews daily
either by phone or in person. Altogether she was on eight
different television programs, several of which aired more
than once and approximately 15 times on radio, with some
talk shows of up to one hour in length. She estimates that
she was mentioned in at least 50 newspaper stories with
about 18 of those stories having substantial information
about her candidacy and/or front page pictures.
The first televised debate lasted 60 minutes and
aired in the southern portion of the district and the
second one, two days later, was 90 minutes long and aired
in the northern area.
Besides questions posed in interviews and debates,
several newspapers sent questionnaires to District Nine
Congressional candidates. Questions in the Centre Daily
Times, the Altoona Mirror, and the Mercersburg Journal,
covered many issues including: Prescription drug coverage
for seniors, Abortion, Gun control, Campaign finance
reform, President Bush's $153 billion Medicare reform
proposal, President Bush's national missile defense
initiative, Public funds for private school vouchers,
Health care, Law enforcement, Faith-based initiatives,
Education, The media, The military, and more.
Hartzok was complimented by the media for "the most
coherent theoretical perspective on politics and policies,"
being "extremely bright and stand(ing) out from the pack,"
and "taking advantage of her time in the spotlight to
express viewpoints sharply different from the major party
candidates."
Hartzok was the only candidate who had initiated
and ushered a bill through the legislative process into law
(the 1998 boroughs enabling bill). She was the only
candidate with experience in world affairs, having served
as a United Nations Non-Governmental Representative for an
international organization. She was the only candidate who
had written numerous published articles on economic and
public finance policy.
To prevent the dependency of District Nine workers
on corporations who are moving out of the area for cheap
labor in Mexico and elsewhere, Hartzok proposed to build
and strengthen a local-based economy in the District. She
proposed to make the entire District Nine a free enterprise
zone by reducing or eliminating taxes on work, wages,
income, homes, local-owned business and shifting the tax
base to land values to stop speculation and keep land
affordable for homes, business, industry and farming.
Considering the substantial impact that our country
has on the rest of the world and how decisions that the US
Congress makes impacts people all over the planet, Hartzok
was dismayed and disappointed at the lack of interest in
international affairs. Rarely did individual citizens or
TV, radio or print news reporters ask questions about vital
issues of trade and globalization, global warming, and Bush
administration intentions to build up the military and
launch a National Missile Defense Shield.
Early in the campaign Hartzok had talked about
Pennsylvania's poor environmental record but even so,
environmental issues did not strike a strong chord in the
district. And even though the state had just announced a
strong advisory against eating fish taken from streams
throughout the state, Hartzok was the only candidate
expressing concern. She campaigned to protect and restore
our natural resources and to push for clean air and water
and to decrease use of health damaging pesticides,
herbicides and other toxins. She does not recall
Republican Shuster ever mentioning environmental issues
while Democrat Conklin did a good job in denouncing trash
importing to Pennsylvania. Both stated their support for
so-called "clean coal" development with no mention of
alternative energy possibilities for the district. (Green
Party's Hartzok called for wind generator, micro-hydro and
photovoltaic industry development.)
Said Hartzok, "Pennsylvania has the second largest
number of senior citizens in the USA (Florida is first)
which explains why there was so much concern about Social
Security and Medicare throughout the campaign. The Bush
tax policy was another area of frequent questioning, with
the major party candidates strongly supporting it. I
pointed out that it was a regressive tax cut which gave the
most to the wealthiest.
On the issues most relevant to taxes on land,
labor, and capital, Hartzok's responses follow:
Minimum wage increase.
"Yes, but it is a bandaid.
Build a fair market economy which untaxes wages and
collects fees for natural resource use to discourage
speculation/ spoliation and encourage broad ownership of
wealth."
Social Security.
"To strengthen: (1) Cut
multi-billion dollars of corporate subsidies and waste;
(2) untax wages and homes so individuals can save more;
and (3) collect unearned income and natural resource
pay-for-use fees to finance."
The $1.35 trillion tax cut agreement before
Congress.
"It gives much more back to upper income persons
and so is regressive, but I do support untaxing income and
payroll taxes, starting at the bottom and working up.
Eliminate taxes on work and collect unearned income for
public needs."
Do you support President Bush's tax cut plan? Why
or why not? What tax reforms would you support?
"The Bush tax proposals are regressive, giving the
most relief to the top, little or nothing to lower and
middle income. The estate tax repeal primarily relieved
the top 1%, not average Americans. I do support
progressive income tax cuts and shifting taxes off wages
and onto unearned income, particularly from land site
values, oil, electromagnetic spectrum and other natural
resources."
Budget surplus. With billions of dollars left over
from previous budgets, what is the best way to use these
funds? Should they go to bolster existing programs, create
new ones, or find their way back to the taxpayers that
provided the money?
"Refund the money to taxpayers and urge them to
capitalize and promote local based and owned industry and
small businesses to counter the problem of corporate flight
to low-wage countries. Cut the unfair subsidies to big
corporations and the dangerously high military budget and
use these billions for low-interest revolving loans to fund
renewable energy industry in District Nine, the shift to
sustainable agriculture, and community based economic
development."
Social Security. With the Social Security program
on unsteady ground, what is the best way to save it for
future generations?
"By year 2020 much more than Social Security will
be at risk. The average wage for men will drop
significantly from current $12 to $10.35 per hour when it
will be the same as women's average wage. Currently the
top 1% of people have 40% of household wealth and the
bottom 90% has only 27%. We need a fair market economy
that (1) cuts $50 billion of corporate subsidies, (2)
untaxes work, wages, and homes, and (3) collects unearned
income and natural resource pay-for-use fees for public
finance."
The Kyoto Agreement requires industrialized nations
to enact legally binding reductions of six greenhouse
gases, one of which is carbon dioxide. Should the US set
carbon dioxide emissions standards for vehicles, as called
for in the Kyoto agreement? Why or why not?
"Yes, the Kyoto Agreement was carefully and
painstakingly worked out by experts from all over the
world. Pennsylvania, for instance, puts 1% of all global
warming gases into the atmosphere and this high level of
pollution is damaging our health and that of others in the
world. The US has 4% of the world's population and
contributes 25% of greenhouse gases. We are contributing
more than our fair share to global warming and we need to
be a good neighbor to the world by taking our share of
responsibility by reducing emissions."
Some in Congress are calling for any tax cuts to be
tied to deficit reduction; that is, in future years, if
there is a shortfall in tax revenues, deficit reduction
would be guaranteed and tax reduction postponed? Do you
agree or disagree? Why?
"We should cut income taxes regardless of the
deficit. We also need to change the monetary system so
that national banks do not issue new money out of thin air
and lend it to us as debt. When new money is needed the
federal government itself should issue that money directly.
If we do this in the future we can lower taxes and reduce
the national debt."
--------------
Alanna Hartzok, Scotland, PA, may be emailed at
earthrts@pa.net.